From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D1DC433EF for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 05:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1358554AbiATFSt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:18:49 -0500 Received: from mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.249]:43217 "EHLO mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236290AbiATFSt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:18:49 -0500 Received: from dread.disaster.area (pa49-179-45-11.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au [49.179.45.11]) by mail105.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B21210C277B; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:18:46 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from dave by dread.disaster.area with local (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1nAPqP-001xGJ-Vl; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:18:46 +1100 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:18:45 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Brian Foster , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: run blockgc on freeze to avoid iget stalls after reclaim Message-ID: <20220120051845.GG59729@dread.disaster.area> References: <20220113133701.629593-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20220113133701.629593-3-bfoster@redhat.com> <20220113223810.GG3290465@dread.disaster.area> <20220114173535.GA90423@magnolia> <20220114213043.GB90423@magnolia> <20220118185647.GB13563@magnolia> <20220120003636.GF13563@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220120003636.GF13563@magnolia> X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=e9dl9Yl/ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=61e8f0b7 a=Eslsx4mF8WGvnV49LKizaA==:117 a=Eslsx4mF8WGvnV49LKizaA==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=DghFqjY3_ZEA:10 a=7-415B0cAAAA:8 a=htVLzlCoyyC1mfYpE6oA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=biEYGPWJfzWAr4FL6Ov7:22 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 04:36:36PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > OTOH I tried to figure out how to deal with the lockless list that those > inodes are put on, and I couldn't figure out how to get them off the > list safely, so that might be a dead end. If you have any ideas I'm all > ears. :) You can't get them off the middle of the llist without adding locking to all the llist operations. I chose llist because it's lockless primitives matched the "add single/remove all" pattern of batch processing that the per-cpu inactive queue implementation required. Hence if you want to do anything other that "single add/remove all" with the inactive queue, you're going to have to replace it with a different queue implementation.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com